IRC log of ag on 2025-02-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:27:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:27:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/25-ag-irc
15:27:52 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:27:53 [Zakim]
Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:28:13 [Chuck]
chair: Chuck
15:28:21 [Chuck]
meeting: AGWG-2025-02-25
15:28:32 [Chuck]
rrsagent, generate minutes
15:28:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/25-ag-minutes.html Chuck
15:30:14 [Chuck]
agenda+ WCAG 2.x update - Reflow
15:30:28 [Chuck]
agenda+ Introduce exploratory work on writing a note to support policy makers with uptake of WCAG 3
15:30:37 [Chuck]
agenda+ Sub-group stand-up (quick update 1. anything which might overlap with other groups, 2. Where are you in the sub-group lifecycle, please update the pathways sheet for your requirements).
15:30:48 [Chuck]
agenda+ Sub group work
15:36:41 [Chuck]
regrets: Todd Libby, Hidde de Vries, Ashley Firth, Jennifer Strickland, Jennie Delisi, Sarah Horton, Shawn Thompson, Christopher Loiselle, Rachael Montgomery
15:38:52 [Chuck]
regrets+ Nat Tarnoff
15:39:42 [Chuck]
regrets+ Lori Oakley
15:51:44 [Chuck]
regrets+ Roberto Scano
15:55:48 [bruce_bailey]
bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:56:38 [jspellman]
jspellman has joined #ag
15:58:06 [filippo-zorzi]
filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:59:02 [Francis_Storr]
Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:59:50 [Kimberly]
Kimberly has joined #ag
16:00:05 [shadi]
shadi has joined #ag
16:00:05 [bruce_bailey]
present+
16:00:09 [Kimberly]
present+
16:00:17 [shadi]
present+
16:00:26 [Francis_Storr]
present+
16:00:49 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #ag
16:01:05 [DJ]
DJ has joined #ag
16:01:05 [GreggVan]
GreggVan has joined #ag
16:01:06 [mbgower]
scribe: mbgower
16:01:08 [kevin]
present+
16:01:10 [kevin]
agenda?
16:01:14 [DJ]
present+
16:01:19 [GreggVan]
present+
16:01:21 [kevin]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/25-ag-minutes.html kevin
16:01:29 [joryc]
joryc has joined #ag
16:01:35 [kenneth]
kenneth has joined #ag
16:01:45 [filippo-zorzi]
present+
16:01:48 [Laura_Carlson]
Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
16:01:51 [Rain]
Rain has joined #ag
16:01:55 [kenneth]
present+
16:01:57 [Rain]
present+
16:02:04 [Laura_Carlson]
present+ Laura_Carlson
16:02:11 [joryc]
present+
16:02:31 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #ag
16:02:37 [alastairc]
present+
16:02:40 [Makoto]
present+
16:02:51 [Frankie]
Frankie has joined #ag
16:02:55 [jtoles]
jtoles has joined #ag
16:02:56 [Frankie]
present+
16:03:00 [mbgower]
Chuck: We have a number of announcements
16:03:06 [jtoles]
present+
16:03:28 [mbgower]
Alastair: We discovered shortly after the last publication we discovered a number of changes from our prior CFC were not incorporated into WCAG 2.1.
16:04:01 [mbgower]
... So we need to republished 2.1 to incorporate those. That will make 2.1 how it was intended to be.
16:04:07 [Chuck]
Shared Glossary: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w3ZiISMbtXVpZtMzYY8rmek3FQ09WJaIdf7n5RXEpq4/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.inikqeyyjj8a
16:04:19 [mbgower]
... That will give a new publish date to WCAG 2.1
16:04:23 [AlinaV]
AlinaV has joined #ag
16:04:29 [AlinaV]
present+
16:04:56 [Chuck]
Pathway Folders: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12j-EdyW5CYkBBfWQVWCX3jvJMAoj8aHa
16:04:58 [mbgower]
Alastair: This is going to be a useful thing because lots of definitions will pass between the subgroups. It's just shared space to identify overlap.
16:05:27 [GN015]
GN015 has joined #ag
16:05:27 [mbgower]
Alastair: We have noticed that we set up all the pathway folders in the drive
16:05:34 [julierawe]
julierawe has joined #ag
16:05:35 [julierawe]
present+
16:05:44 [julierawe]
Can you please reshare the link?
16:05:46 [mbgower]
... All of it is currently in the 2024 folder. It would be useful to move those.
16:05:50 [alastairc]
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12j-EdyW5CYkBBfWQVWCX3jvJMAoj8aHa
16:06:03 [Chuck]
q+
16:06:05 [mbgower]
... Maybe we can do this in the first part of your subgroup work.
16:06:05 [Chuck]
ack ch
16:06:38 [Tananda]
Tananda has joined #ag
16:06:38 [mbgower]
Chuck: I have already moved our subgroup work in there. There is a lot of research information done by other groups. Do we want to leave it in its current location?
16:06:42 [mike_beganyi]
mike_beganyi has joined #ag
16:06:45 [Chuck]
ack Ch
16:06:45 [GreggVan]
q+
16:06:51 [mbgower]
Alastair: Put the new stuff in the new folder. Link back to older stuff where relevant.
16:07:24 [Chuck]
ack Gregg
16:07:26 [mbgower]
Gregg: I found it useful to put research into your current document in a different tab or something. We've been linking to it and copying over so it can be worked and commented.
16:07:31 [mike_beganyi]
present+
16:08:15 [Tananda]
present+
16:08:18 [alastairc]
https://w3c.github.io/matf/
16:08:19 [mbgower]
Chuck: The Mobile Accessibility task force (MATF) is looking for people to review the information just emailed out.
16:08:41 [Azlan9]
Azlan9 has joined #ag
16:08:53 [mbgower]
... Next week is our first meeting where we will be starting this call 30 minutes early for new individuals who need some onboarding.
16:09:09 [mbgower]
MJ and DJ will be leading that.
16:09:31 [Azlan]
Azlan has joined #ag
16:09:40 [kevin]
q+ to make a final, final announcement
16:09:41 [mbgower]
Chuck: I will be shortly sending out a CFC for closing more silver issues.
16:09:45 [Azlan]
present+
16:10:09 [julierawe]
q+
16:10:17 [Chuck]
ack julie
16:10:37 [mbgower]
Julie: I'm just catching up. So we're supposed to move things into our specific task folder?
16:10:42 [Jen_G]
Jen_G has joined #ag
16:10:44 [mbgower]
Alastair: Yes, the things you're currently working on
16:11:00 [mbgower]
Julie: So stuff we have that we will be working on later, for example, clear wording?
16:11:09 [Chuck]
ack kevin
16:11:09 [Zakim]
kevin, you wanted to make a final, final announcement
16:11:11 [mbgower]
Alastair: If you're currently working on it, move it into your path folder.
16:11:40 [mbgower]
Kevin: As you know, we have the AG meeting in person at CSUN. We have a room; conference organizers donated the room.
16:12:19 [mbgower]
... Unfortunately the room didn't come with wifi. I have a quote from that. i would welcome any organization who would sponsor that and cover the cost of wifi. Get in touch with me separately ifyou think your org can assist.
16:12:19 [Chuck]
agenda?
16:12:33 [Chuck]
zakim, take up item1
16:12:33 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- WCAG 2.x update - Reflow -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:12:37 [Jen_G]
Present+
16:12:38 [kirkwood]
present+
16:12:47 [alastairc]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/4055
16:12:59 [mbgower]
Alastair: I'm going to share screen briefly
16:13:22 [mbgower]
... There is a reason Michael Gower sent only one thing for review. It is a complete rewrite of the Understanding document for Reflow.
16:13:46 [mbgower]
... Everything from the Intent heading down is essentially new or wholly revised.
16:14:01 [mbgower]
... Scott took on the number of issues and did a whole rewrite.
16:14:22 [stevef]
stevef has joined #ag
16:14:28 [jaunita_george]
jaunita_george has joined #ag
16:14:32 [jaunita_george]
present+
16:14:33 [stevef]
present+
16:14:45 [mbgower]
... There are a number of ways to provide feedback. First general indication of support. Second provide comments on things you'd like to change. Third, provide specific editoral feedback in Suggestions, if possible.
16:14:51 [Chuck]
q?
16:15:00 [mbgower]
... This is one big thing, rather than a bunch of smaller issues.
16:15:01 [Chuck]
zakim, take up next item
16:15:01 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Introduce exploratory work on writing a note to support policy makers with uptake of WCAG 3 -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:15:24 [alastairc]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/288
16:15:55 [mbgower]
Chuck: I won't bother sharing my screen, but we are introduce this to the group.
16:16:19 [mbgower]
... It's where we start delving into what to provide policy makers for guidance. This is the beginning stages.
16:16:55 [mbgower]
Alastair: In the discussion we just linked to, we'd like feedback on whether folks think we should include this, and what should be included.
16:17:09 [Chuck]
q?
16:17:12 [mbgower]
... We will start initials drafts before the charter, if there is support. Then we can get more public involvement.
16:17:39 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #ag
16:17:54 [mbgower]
John Kirkwood: I'm interested in this. I've written policy on this myself. What problem are we trying to address?
16:18:14 [jspellman]
present+
16:18:22 [Detlev]
present+
16:18:37 [jspellman]
q+ to answer John about Silver work
16:18:59 [mbgower]
Kevin: This has been a topic around for awhile. A challenge we know exists is how to integrate technical standards into policies and regulations. We know what should be considered, and there has been a desire to provide context for people writing policy or regulations on what they need to think about or questions to explore.
16:19:14 [Chuck]
ack jsp
16:19:14 [Zakim]
jspellman, you wanted to answer John about Silver work
16:19:28 [shadi]
q+
16:19:35 [mbgower]
jspellman: I was just skimming this. I see it references the WCAG 3 conformance, which came out of the silver subgroup.
16:20:00 [mbgower]
... there are major use cases like small business and third party content.
16:20:01 [jspellman]
https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/
16:20:08 [Chuck]
ack shadi
16:20:08 [mbgower]
... I recognize a lot of this work from silver.
16:20:53 [mbgower]
Shadi: To add to what Jeanne said, she and janina worked on conformance options. There are aspects which are technical and things that are policy-- and that WCAG will not solve.
16:21:30 [mbgower]
... Conformance and compliance are related, but WCAG is not a law. So this could help policy makers understand what they can do in addition to WCAG.
16:21:37 [kirkwood]
q+
16:21:44 [mbgower]
... It might help draw lines about what is and is not in our scope.
16:22:16 [Chuck]
ack kirk
16:22:22 [mbgower]
chuck: Jaunata asked if we should be making standards for agentic AI
16:22:39 [shadi]
q+
16:22:43 [mbgower]
kirk: This is great. I would recommend you have a lot of people with experience of adoption of policy move it forward.
16:22:46 [Chuck]
ack shadi
16:23:07 [mbgower]
Shadi: This is not telling policy makers what to do.
16:23:27 [kirkwood]
yes
16:23:32 [kirkwood]
very good
16:23:47 [mbgower]
... Previously the group has been vibrant. This is from a technical side covering what WCAG does and does not cover, and leave it there for policy makers to decide what they can do in their own regulatory framework.
16:23:49 [Chuck]
q?
16:24:00 [kevin]
q+
16:24:04 [Chuck]
ack kevin
16:24:46 [mbgower]
Kevin: This is a quick response to Jaunita. AI is a topic being discussed in many different areas in W3C and beyond. There is a strong interest in exploring what the impact of AI is on standards work.
16:25:01 [mbgower]
... You might want to raise that at a higher level than just AG.
16:25:05 [Chuck]
q?
16:25:12 [Chuck]
zakim, take up next item
16:25:12 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Sub-group stand-up (quick update 1. anything which might overlap with other groups, 2. Where are you in the sub-group lifecycle, please update the pathways sheet for
16:25:15 [Zakim]
... your requirements). -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:25:44 [mbgower]
Chuck: We thought it might be worth reviewing crafting decision trees.
16:25:59 [alastairc]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y5r2ubojyx4kHOu01HqyC1WLkIPhJibwJigAHwLNwrI/edit?tab=t.uf77wxwwqnqj#heading=h.rd97qp7x8kfi
16:26:01 [mbgower]
Alastair: This is the trickiest bit of some of the work we're doing. I'm going to share a document
16:26:32 [mbgower]
... The main thing we're working on is what the requirements are. The decision tree is something we can do in the normative text to guide people.
16:27:10 [mbgower]
... The complication comes in where we want to allow user agents to fulfil requirements or do it in different ways for different technologies.
16:27:22 [mbgower]
... I'm looking at keyboard as an example.
16:27:44 [mbgower]
... Under the Foundational requirements, the document looks at "view"
16:27:46 [scott]
scott has joined #ag
16:27:59 [mbgower]
... Under that, there is one set of requirements.
16:28:03 [GreggVan]
q+
16:28:05 [scott]
present+
16:28:32 [mbgower]
... Because keyboard is so fundamental, we just have a list of 4 items to pass
16:28:42 [mbgower]
... A more complicated one is focus indicators.
16:29:09 [mbgower]
... There are two main checks, with one sub-item
16:29:43 [mbgower]
... Text alternatives has a couple of different 'branches'. A decorative branch.
16:30:04 [mbgower]
... Then, if it is an image there are a bunch of other considerations.
16:30:17 [mbgower]
.... Clear meaning has 3 checks, and a slightly different tree
16:30:38 [mbgower]
... We experimented with this in the draft to see if it worked.
16:30:51 [mbgower]
... The last one I'm showing is text appearance.
16:30:59 [mbgower]
... We have have a decorative branch to start.
16:31:12 [mbgower]
... Then we have a building box approach. We want some minimums.
16:31:27 [mbgower]
... Then we have a branch for if the user can personalize/adjust the text.
16:31:55 [mbgower]
... And based on the answer to that, a number of decisions to make.
16:32:19 [mbgower]
... So there are some quite different assumptions that go into this.
16:32:25 [Chuck]
q?
16:32:27 [Chuck]
ack Gregg
16:32:52 [mbgower]
Gregg: First of all, this is under the title of Requirments.
16:33:03 [mbgower]
... The first thing asks a question. That's not a requirement.
16:33:12 [alastairc]
q+
16:33:23 [mbgower]
... Then it says do these things underneath it.
16:33:54 [mbgower]
... If it starts with "If" and wipe out the question, that would work. [real time editing in response]
16:34:22 [mbgower]
... I don't they should be questions. It is listed as Foundational Requirements.
16:35:05 [jspellman]
q+ to disagree with Gregg. This is a decision tree, not a requirements list.
16:35:27 [mbgower]
Gregg: These should be else ifs.
16:35:37 [Chuck]
q+ to say that gregg's suggestions sound too much like a programming language
16:36:02 [mbgower]
... Then you'd have "then" statements.
16:36:21 [mbgower]
... Now it becomes a statement of a requirement rather than being a test.
16:36:52 [mbgower]
... When it's listed as a bunch of questions, it looks like a testing regiment, rather than what you have to do.
16:37:58 [mbgower]
... You are trying to make logic and make the sorting logic make sense to people reading it.
16:38:03 [Chuck]
ack ala
16:39:02 [mbgower]
Alastair: I somewhat agree with a lot of that, but what I'd like to make sure is that we get a good spread of these to assess, because some of these would be different to approach. I agree we need to standardize, but we need to find the most readable format that works.
16:39:07 [Chuck]
ack jsp
16:39:07 [Zakim]
jspellman, you wanted to disagree with Gregg. This is a decision tree, not a requirements list.
16:39:13 [bruce_bailey]
bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:39:33 [GreggVan]
q+
16:39:36 [Chuck]
ack Ch
16:39:36 [Zakim]
Chuck, you wanted to say that gregg's suggestions sound too much like a programming language
16:39:39 [mbgower]
jspellman: I would like to disagree with Gregg. This is a decision tree, not a list of requirements. To me it is much easier to understand, and follows the more common use of a decision tree. I would prefer to leave as questions.
16:40:04 [mbgower]
Chuck: Initially what Gregg provided sounded like programming language, but then he qualified how to word it.
16:40:34 [kirkwood]
+1 to Gregg clarity given. if/then/else. of the ‘tree’ in title
16:40:41 [Chuck]
ack Gregg
16:40:44 [mbgower]
... We do want to standardize, but initially that's a challenge. And I think it is a benefit to see how different groups arrive at their own decision trees. It will help us assess the best way to do this with plain language.
16:40:56 [alastairc]
q+ for goals
16:40:58 [mbgower]
Gregg: You said it's a decision tree. To do what?
16:41:21 [kirkwood]
or is it requirements?
16:41:24 [mbgower]
... If it's meant to be something that says 'here are the rules', then you don't have a list of questions.
16:41:53 [mbgower]
... If you want it to be used the way WCAG was used -- for standards -- this will need to be rewritten.
16:42:11 [mbgower]
... I don't think it's bad to have a decision tree. But they will have to be written as rules.
16:42:18 [Chuck]
ack ala
16:42:18 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to discuss goals
16:42:23 [kirkwood]
I have similar concerns
16:42:37 [mbgower]
Alastair: in terms of the goals, it is to guide people to which requirements apply in their scenario.
16:42:52 [mbgower]
... I don't think it's that different than an If/else statement.
16:43:00 [mbgower]
... Each links should go to a primary requirement.
16:43:08 [Detlev]
like the preconditions in Annex C of the EN 301 549....
16:43:15 [Chuck]
q?
16:43:21 [kirkwood]
but this has value i would rather note call it a reqiements tree”
16:43:22 [julierawe]
q+
16:43:25 [mbgower]
... In many cases it's giving an option for a user agent to meet rather than an author.
16:43:34 [Chuck]
ack julie
16:43:37 [GreggVan]
q+
16:43:42 [kirkwood]
q+
16:43:45 [alastairc]
Detlev - I wasn't going to name that, but it was what I was thinking ;-)
16:43:54 [mbgower]
Julie: In the example being shown, the first question in the decision tree was asking a question.
16:44:00 [tiffanyburtin]
tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
16:44:07 [tiffanyburtin]
present+
16:44:11 [kirkwood]
just to not call it a “requirements tree”
16:44:17 [mbgower]
... Is it considered a best practice to have 2 acceptable 'yes' answers to a question?
16:44:18 [Chuck]
ack Gregg
16:44:19 [alastairc]
q+
16:44:28 [mbgower]
Gregg: I was thinking about her question...
16:45:19 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
16:45:24 [LenB]
present+
16:45:29 [mbgower]
... My only other comment is this is logic. If this, do that. I think we can try to do that in plain language. At some point it is going to require for someone to do this legally.
16:45:42 [mbgower]
... Half of people who go to college don't understand logic.
16:45:59 [mbgower]
... We need to try to write in as plain a language as we can while making it clear.
16:46:21 [mbgower]
.. But the rules that will be put in the standards need to have clear logic.
16:46:31 [mbgower]
q+ to say how does somehting like ACT rules fit into this?
16:46:41 [Chuck]
scribe+ Chuck
16:46:52 [mbgower]
Gregg: Logic is a talent, not intelligence.
16:46:52 [Chuck]
ack kirk
16:47:26 [mbgower]
kirk: This decision tree process is great. It shows how to do this. I do think calling it a requirements tree is wrong.
16:47:30 [GreggVan]
q+
16:47:34 [mbgower]
... We are just confusing ourselves with this.
16:47:47 [Chuck]
ack ala
16:47:57 [Laura_Carlson]
+1 to John K
16:47:57 [mbgower]
... I think it's a good progresss. I just think the language needs to be adjusted.
16:48:22 [mbgower]
Alastair: Thinking back to Julie's question on what the first question should be...
16:48:41 [kirkwood]
q?
16:48:45 [julierawe]
q+
16:49:08 [Chuck]
ack julie
16:49:34 [GreggVan]
q+ to ask "what decision" and can we change the title to match the function of the tree. Is it at "Test decision Tree" which would havd pass fail or an "Author Decision Tree" in which case it would be DO this or SKIP this or that" and not have pass and fail.
16:49:35 [mbgower]
Julie: It was a different part of the doc, I think called "requirements tree". It was a different question like 'is the text purely decorative...
16:49:51 [mbgower]
... Yes, Text appearacne.
16:50:58 [mbgower]
Alastair: these are two things. Is the text purely decorative, or is it not intended to be read -- think of a giant letter watermark.
16:51:08 [mbgower]
Julie: the "or" statement confused me.
16:51:09 [giacomo-petri]
giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:51:11 [giacomo-petri]
present+
16:51:23 [mbgower]
... it seemed like there might be confusion in the wording.
16:51:38 [mbgower]
Alastair: hopefully that is just a wording question, not a strucural
16:51:54 [alastairc]
We need to work out the definition of "purely decorative"
16:52:11 [Chuck]
mbgower: I want to point out that I think there is a clear desire to express a decision process in the way that is the most understandable to the most people.
16:52:33 [Chuck]
mbgower: Gregg's statements on people's challenges with logic statements speaks to why it makes sense to make this more natural language.
16:52:39 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
16:52:42 [Ben_Tillyer]
present+
16:53:03 [Chuck]
mbgower: My sense is with that done, we can discuss later if the language has a natural transport into logic. ACT work demonstrates that there is a set of tests that are repeatable, etc.
16:53:08 [Ben_Tillyer]
agenda?
16:53:26 [alastairc]
Open to new names, it has morphed a bit since the start
16:53:29 [Chuck]
mbgower: I suspect we will have a path to go to a more understandable decision tree. The actual decision tree where you ask a question and what you are trying to get at it has value.
16:53:33 [Chuck]
q?
16:53:36 [jspellman]
+1 Mike
16:53:40 [Chuck]
ack mb
16:53:40 [Zakim]
mbgower, you wanted to say how does somehting like ACT rules fit into this?
16:53:42 [Chuck]
ack Gregg
16:53:42 [Zakim]
GreggVan, you wanted to ask "what decision" and can we change the title to match the function of the tree. Is it at "Test decision Tree" which would havd pass fail or an
16:53:45 [Zakim]
... "Author Decision Tree" in which case it would be DO this or SKIP this or that" and not have pass and fail.
16:54:12 [mbgower]
Gregg: My question is what decision are we trying to make?
16:54:27 [mbgower]
... If it is a testing decision tree, it would say Pass and Fail
16:54:40 [mbgower]
... If it is for the author it should be Do this
16:54:42 [alastairc]
q+ to say that - if you meet a requirement (or set of requirements) then it's a pass, but that's not a test-tree
16:55:15 [mbgower]
... So we need to determine if this is a testing or author decision tree.
16:55:25 [bruce_bailey]
bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:55:36 [Chuck]
ack ala
16:55:36 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to say that - if you meet a requirement (or set of requirements) then it's a pass, but that's not a test-tree
16:55:48 [mbgower]
Alastair: It is a tree for saying which requirements apply in your scenario.
16:55:58 [mbgower]
... I think it is okay to talk about passing or failing.
16:56:10 [mbgower]
Gregg: You didn't answer my question. Are you trying to say it's both?
16:56:31 [mbgower]
Alastair: The techniques would be underneath this. It's trying to determine which requirements apply.
16:56:48 [mbgower]
Gregg: Whether you use plain language or not, this is a logic tree.
16:57:08 [Chuck]
+1 to gregg's observations on "logic"
16:57:22 [mbgower]
... If you try to do this in plain language, it's going to be long and wordy, and it will not be usable in any other context.
16:57:23 [Chuck]
q+ to close out this conversation
16:57:28 [Chuck]
zakim, close queue
16:57:28 [Zakim]
ok, Chuck, the speaker queue is closed
16:57:37 [mbgower]
... If you want to put in the techniques, that's great, but they will change.
16:57:44 [mbgower]
... They need to be in a separate document.
16:57:44 [Laura_Carlson]
+1 to Gregg
16:58:07 [mbgower]
Alastair: that is the plan, to have techniques separate
16:58:34 [mbgower]
Gregg: So this tree is not going to get in the WCAG document, some pieces will go in different locations?
16:58:52 [mbgower]
Alastair: As in the current draft, we have a section "Which foundation requirements apply?
16:59:07 [mbgower]
... That would have to be normative
16:59:35 [stevef]
regrets for subgroup today
16:59:38 [mbgower]
... But what I would try to finish with is that for the subgroups working, you need to have your list of requirements before you do a decision tree.
16:59:54 [mbgower]
... The core thing is we have a set of requirements under each guideline.
17:00:13 [mbgower]
Gregg: This will not be adopted by EN 301 549.
17:00:24 [mbgower]
... The conditions should be on the requirements.
17:00:53 [mbgower]
... This is going to be much more difficult to understand.
17:01:03 [mbgower]
... I think this is a recipe for disaster.
17:01:19 [jspellman]
q+ to propose that we actually ask people at EN 301 549 and other regulatory groups whether they would find it acceptable.
17:01:21 [mbgower]
... It will set us back a year or more
17:01:53 [mbgower]
chuck: I'm going to cut off conversation here. We're out of time.
17:02:06 [mbgower]
Chuck: We are not going to do group updates. The scribed portion is concluded.
17:02:29 [mbgower]
Chuck: We will form a future agenda item about this.
17:02:39 [bruce_bailey]
q+
17:02:44 [Laura_Carlson]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:02:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/25-ag-minutes.html Laura_Carlson
17:02:57 [Chuck]
zakim, open queue
17:02:57 [Zakim]
ok, Chuck, the speaker queue is open
17:05:17 [Laura_Carlson]
Laura_Carlson has left #ag
17:06:25 [Detlev]
sorry feeling too mentally connstipated to carry on... I call it a day for today
17:14:14 [Chuck]
@kevin, I do not need you to leave your room, but if you are available, I do have a couple of questions for you regarding wifi.
17:16:07 [Laura_Carlson]
Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
19:00:28 [Adam_Page]
Adam_Page has joined #ag